Crop Rotation and Intercropping Strategies for Weed Management
Matt Liebman,Elizabeth Dyck
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1941795
Abstract:Results of a literature survey indicate that weed population density and biomass production may be markedly reduced using crop rotation (temporal diversification) and intercropping (spatial diversification) strategies. Crop rotation resulted in emerged weed densities in test crops that were lower in 21 cases, higher in 1 case, and equivalent in 5 cases in comparison to monoculture systems. In 12 cases where weed seed density was reported, seed density in crop rotation was lower in 9 cases and equivalent in 3 cases when compared to monocultures of the component crops. In intercropping systems where a main crop was intersown with a "smother" crop species, weed biomass in the intercrop was lower in 47 cases and higher in 4 cases than in the main crop grown alone (as a sole crop); a variable response was observed in 3 cases. When intercrops were composed of two or more main crops, weed biomass in the intercrop was lower than in all of the component sole crops in 12 cases, intermediate between component sole crops in 10 cases, and higher than all sole crops in 2 cases. It is unclear why crop rotation studies have focused on weed density, whereas intercropping studies have focused on weed biomass. The success of rotation systems for weed suppression appears to be based on the use of crop sequences that create varying patterns of resource competition, allelopathic interference, soil disturbance, and mechanical damage to provide an unstable and frequently inhospitable environment that prevents the proliferation of a particular weed species. The relative importance and most effective combinations of these weed control tactics have not been adequately assessed. In addition, the weed-suppressive effects of other related factors, such as manipulation of soil fertility dynamics in rotation sequences, need to be examined. Intercrops may demonstrate weed control advantages over sole crops in two ways. First, greater crop yield and less weed growth may be achieved if intercrops are more effective than sole crops in usurping resources from weeds or suppressing weed growth through allelopathy. Alternatively, intercrops may provide yield advantages without suppressing weed growth below levels observed in component sole crops if intercrops use resources that are not exploitable by weeds or convert resources to harvestable material more efficiently than sole crops. Because of the difficulty of monitoring the use of multiple resources by intercrop/weed mixtures throughout the growing season, identification of specific mechanisms of weed suppression and yield enhancement in intercrop systems has so far proven elusive. Significant advances in the design and improvement of weed-suppressive crop rotation and intercropping systems are most likely to occur if three important areas of research are addressed. First, there must be continued attention to the study of weed population dynamics and crop-weed interference in crop rotation and intercropping systems. More information is needed concerning the effects of diversification of cropping systems on weed seed longevity, weed seedling emergence, weed seed production and dormancy, agents of weed mortality, differential resource consumption by crops and weeds, and allelopathic interactions. Second, there needs to be systematic manipulation of specific components of rotation and intercropping systems to isolate and improve those elements (e.g., interrow cultivation, choice of crop genotype) or combinations of elements that may be especially important for weed control. Finally, the weed-related impacts of combining crop rotation and intercropping strategies should be assessed through careful study of extant, complex farming systems and the design and testing of new integrated approaches. Many aspects of crop rotation and intercropping are compatible with current farming practices and could become more accessible to farmers if government policies are restructured to reflect the true environmental costs of agricultural production.